If you say so. I certainly cannot dispute it. Altough I'm not sure which part of my post that applies to.

Now thats the best post on partis I have seen yet! Thanks!
Of course no one has seen a parti in Europe and I am not talking about the biewer.
I just find it very hard to believe the logistics and statistics. I have seen with my own eyes how some partis are bred, registrations falsified, and AkC registered but they were actually a mix breed. Statistically there would be tons of partis being born to almost all of the exhibitor/hobby breeders in the U.S. and Canada. So where are these puppies? It seems funny that only the non exhibitor/hobby breeders have partis in frequent numbers. The numbers just dont add up.

Thank you. That bit of information speaks volumes.

God Bless You ... I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes! Finally more information confirming what we've been told.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

Lynn,

If your championed dogs, produced parti puppies, would you make it publicly known? Or would you, keep things quiet, sell the pups without papers and not repeat that breeding? Ya really have to think about it because your reputation and years of perfecting your breeding stock and show lines could be destroyed if it became public knowledge that your lines carry these recessive genes.

The show breeders did have the partis showing up in their litters. they kept it secret for fear of being shunned by they YTCA. If they did not spay/neuter the offending dog, they most likely did not repeat that breeding.

The reason that we parti breeders are getting them frequently (although I have yet to produce one) is because we are breeding deliberately trying to produce them. It is no accident. And also because we openly admit to breeding for them and are more than delighted when we get them in a litter, because we don't give a rats behind what the YTCA thinks or says.

And are we to assume that you know and have personally interviewed every yorkie breeder in the UK? Or are you just making that assumption because none of the UK YT members have them.

I never get involved in these threads because I am not a breeder and am not knowledgeable about breeding or genetics in any way shape or form. So why on earth am I here?:p Every time one of these threads come up it makes me think of a woman who used to work as a groomer in my mom's shop. She was a breeder of show standard poodles. My mom told me a story of one of her champions producing a parti and she killed the puppy. I know- I've heard of "culling" on this forum but it's usually in context of something people used to do. This was in the last 8 years or so not ancient history.:eek: I asked why on earth didn't she give it away with no papers- then it couldn't have been tracked back to her lines. The woman told my mom word would get out and she just couldn't have that- it would ruin her reputation. Now why on earth she confided all of this to my mom I have no idea. My mom was of course horrified but I guess this woman liked to talk and figured my mother had nothing to do with poodles or the show world and was safe.

This whole story is completely sickening and of course it's about poodles not yorkies but it really opened my eyes to the extremes some breeders will go to. I seriously doubt this is isolated to the poodle world.

eta: I'm certainly not suggesting anyone here would do this- I'm NOT- just sharing my story.

Actually I would make it public and tell the breeders that bred the dog in question about the problem I think any reputable breeder would want to know this info! I know that I would want to know! And if it was actually found to be in, lets say, my CH. Rowdys line and he was the one that produced the color, I would have him and any offspring that he produced that I would eventually use for breed/show neutered and spayed. I dont sell on open registration, so any puppies that I may have sold would already be fixed. But in almost 30 years of breeding Yorkies, I have never come across this fault nor know any other people that have, be it show/hobby or bybr. With the exception of three back yard breeders and I know that one was registering mixes with AkC and the others had multiple breeds.
I see no reason to keep quiet when faults are being produced, be it color or patellas, etc.
Statistically speaking, if you are saying that the parti gene's culprit is Pompy then with the thousands of crosses to him over the years must have produced at least 1/4 parti colors. The frequency is just not there.

And you have iron clad proof of this? Gee, which disgruntalled YTcA members have you personally talked to? I really dont think that the YTCA is out to "kill" its members. If they dont agree with the standard as it is written then its time to find another breed or go elswhere. You know clubs arent for everyone. some people just arent team players. And your last sentence is exactly why you will never be a reputable breeder.

I commend you for your honesty and integrity, theoretically, you've just lost a good portion of what you have worked so hard for over the last 30 years, and now you basically have to start over from square 1. I can assure you though, that not all breeders will have those same feelings if it happened to them.

We now have 2 separate sources saying that Wildweir told AKC that they produced parti, yet you still have doubts that it's possible? Maybe you or someone else you trust could find out how closely related was Pomp to the Wildweir parti pups?

This is the part of your theory I have a hard time accepting. I don't think a good breeder would keep it quiet. I think she would place it in a pet only home with papers, but she wouldn't breed it, and she probably wouldn't repeat the breeding that produced it. I do believe she would tell the breeder she got the dog from, and talk to others about this. I do believe that many breeders would do this, and every good breeder would. I really don't think the show lines would be destroyed at all because according to some as a recessive trait, it wouldn't be worrisome, unless you breed two dogs with this trait. Again, if this person is worried about her lines and being shunned by the YTCA, she's isn't a good breeder, she just interested in her own pockets and not bettering the breed.

What a boring world this would be if we all lived our lives by someone elses rules. There would be no creativiity at all, because to be creative you have to think outside of the box. There would be no new breeds estasblihed beyond a handful of original breeds. So dogs would all look pretty much the same. And the Yorkie would not exist.

I am a team player, but I don't always play by the rules.

I do not agree with the guidlines set down by the YTCA so therefore I went "elsewhere". I see no reason for disqualifying a dog because of it's color and don't need affirmation from the YTCA to tell me that I'm doing a good job.

I do not see that breeding off colored yorkies makes me or anyone else a bad person. I don't know what the YTCA is afraid of.

You and I have totally different opinions of what constitutes a reputable breeder. and I don't give a rats behind if you think I fit into that category or not.

I am in good company as there are a lot of fine fine breeders that do not care what the YTCA thinks. The YTCA did not create the Yorkshire Terrier, they do not own the breed. And they are wrong and foolish for disqualifying these beautiful colors that are a natural part of the Yorkshire Terrier makeup.

The statment has been posted twice, (once by someone who has had no knowledge of any of us) about the parti colors showing up in the Wildweir kennels, and the fact they kept it a secret, yet you refuse to believe it, and refuse to believe it, and mock me when I suggest that the reason no breeder admitted it is because they feared their reputations as breeders would be ruined.

I guess that makes you a better person and a more reputable breeder than Joan Gordon.

Does this go for all faults? Or just the color? If a puppy is born with a slight over bite, or an ounce or two over 7 pounds, or black and gold instead of blue/tan, or a coat that isn't quite perfect. Do you spay/neuter all of those parents too, or just the ones that produce parti puppies?

I daresay if every dog was spay/neutered that produced a puppy with a disqualifying fault, there wouldn't be very many show dogs. In fact the breed would have died off a long time ago.

To cull a puppy does not always mean it is killed. Cull means to remove it from your program. Unfortunately many do destroy them because they do not want to be found out, and unless the puppy is destroyed there is always that chance.

One would have to be very naive to believe that all show breeders spay/neuter any dog that produces a puppy with a fault.

I honestly can't believe you asked that question, I really don't think you have talked with that many good breeders. Yes, dogs with faults should not be bred. A dog that produces a fault does not necessarily have to stop breeding, depending on the fault, the breeder might not want to use that pair again. I know you laugh and make jokes when people talk about "improving the breed" but really there are some breeders who want to do just that.

So you are saying that if a pair of dogs produces one puppy that is not show potential, that pair will not be bred again, even though it is a champion and that particular mating has produced other champions? If every puppy in every litter is not perfect???

You said "depending upon the fault, so some faults are allowed?

and yes I do scoff at the statment "improving the breed". They might be improving their own line, but to say that your line improves the entire breed?????

And that puts Joan Gordon among the "not so good" breeders.

No, I didn't say that, and this is another example how you twist people's words. Please reread my reply.

LOL I was thinking the same thing. I have 2 of them no skin problems with either one of mine..Gayle?? You have any skin problems with yours?:D:D:D

Yes, dogs with faults should not be bred. A dog that produces a fault does not necessarily have to stop breeding, depending on the fault, the breeder might not want to use that pair again.

Those are your words.

So you are saying that if a pair of dogs produces one puppy that is not show potential, that pair will not be bred again, even though it is a champion and that particular mating has produced other champions? If every puppy in every litter is not perfect???

Those are my words.

Please tell me how I twisted what you said.

Does this go for all faults? Or just the color? If a puppy is born with a slight over bite, or an ounce or two over 7 pounds, or black and gold instead of blue/tan, or a coat that isn't quite perfect. Do you spay/neuter all of those parents too, or just the ones that produce parti puppies?

that was my original question.

Please Explain to me how it works.

Yorkiekist had stated, unequivocly, that if one of her champion dogs produced a puppy with a fault, that she would spay/neuter that dog and any of it's offspring.

I asked does that go for all faults, or just certain faults like a parti colored puppy. For instance a black and gold puppy.

Nancy1999 was shocked that I would even ask such a question but then said "depending on the fault".

Is it unreasonable to ask which faults are "capital faults" and which ones are not?

I think maybe the difference would be if the faults were correctable through selective breeding? :confused: It's entirely possible to have a dog with some faults and breed the fault out of a line. I dunno, just a guess.

If there were a list for dedicated, loving, responsible dog owners, Sherrie would be at the top.

No I haven't had any skin problems in my dogs. I would love to talk to the Vet that has had that much experience with Biewers that he was able to make that assessment. He might be able to answer other questions I have about the Biewers.

JeannieK, How long have you been breeding? I would like to know the last time the YTCA kicked anyone out for producing a puppy that was out of standard.

I did not say they would be kicked out. I said some members fear being shunned, and ruining their reputation as a breeder.

Years ago show breeders were a small close knit group of people. They were wealthy, and breeding was their life. If that kind of news got out it would have been social suicide for them. So those dirty little secrets were hidden.
And I have had old retired breeders tell me so. Now you all can pretend it did not go on, all you want, but I know that it did.

Had they all spay/neutered those offenders the parti gene probably would have been bred out. Well thank God for those breeders that had the sense to realize this was a natural part of the yorkie make up. It's not like they were breeding unhealthy dog.

Yeah I understand that in most cases "cull" doesn't mean to kill the puppy. I was just under the impression that killing them was a thing of the past and I was literally shocked and sickened that it still happens. It shows how far some (and I would think very few) breeders will go to protect the reputation of their lines.

ETA: Just to clarify, this poodle breeder did kill her parti puppy.

Yes I believe that it does still happen on a smaller scale. But it does show that some breeders do hide their falty offspring in order to protect their reputations, and I would guess many of them are breeders that are consider to be "reputable breeders".

Those on here that are in denial of it, might be surprised at how many of their fellow breeders are hiding their fasulty puppies.

Your original question was this.


I was trying to say that a breeder does not have to spay/neuter parents who have puppies with a slight overbite or if the are an ounce or two over 7 pounds, or even a parti puppy. I was extremely surprised you thought anybody was even suggesting this. Just because a dog is a champion doesn't mean his offspring will not have faults, but you don't breed FOR the faults. I've always considered the parti fault a fault like the others, you are the one that has suggested it's much worse than the other faults, and a breeder would take extreme measures to prevent people from learning about this.

I asked a breeder on YorkieTalk, why she was breeding an 8 pound dog. Her reply was that the dog had perfect structure, and other wonderful qualities, furthermore, she knew the line, and her dog was the biggest of her ancestors, so she had a good chance of passing the smaller size genes to her offspring, and she was taking a calculated risk, by using this dog. She had a goal and purpose in mind when she was doing this. She wasn't breeding the 8 pounder because she wanted to produce larger yorkies to cater to those who wanted larger dogs, she was improving her line. When you improve your line you improve the breed. Good breeders do work with each other, they will tell each other the truth about the flaws and strengths of their dogs.

Thanks for this thread.
 

Bowie, My adorable Morkie is parti. Hes is beige and had black tips and some apricot also. I think its beautiful just like he is.
Op: I think we should be able to ask what ever we want without getting yelled at or without a big drama happening. Im glad you asked cause sometime i wonder about the parti color as well.:)

UGH So much anger sometimes:(

I was asking the question after reading post #70. Yorkiekist made it very clear thast spay/neutering was the only reputable thing to do if one produced a parti puppy. So I thought my question was a reasonable one.

I in no way suggested that the parti color was a worse fault, why would I do that? I don't consider it a fualt at all, I consider it a variation.